I fail to see any implication of conspiracy in his statement. It isn't even referencing a real human emotion or intentional malice but anthropomorphizing the institution of government. Growth of government jobs, department budgets, and votes for elected officials all require a constantly increasing scope. It's built in to the system. There is no (easy) mechanism for relinquishing control in an area. Unfortunately, the end result is accelerating government bloat and loss of freedoms.

There is no need for conspiracy when human nature ensures the same result.

What does this have to do with the parent post? He didn't imply a conspiracy. There's no conspiracy -- except that government officials don't like things that challenge their sources of power, which is what these two senators think Bitcoin is ("people can trade DRUGS in bitcoin, we don't like that and there's no one to phone up to ask who to arrest!").

The parent post isn't really right either -- Bitcoin will never replace a traditional fiat currency. You can't pay your taxes in it, so it has no intrinsic value at all, when the bubble ends, no one will accept it as payment for goods and services except to the extent that it is exchangable for USD.